Dear Folks Volitionally Choosing Their Own Karma, Good and Bad,
What would be the impact on (and of) certain Buddhist teachings and ethical views should their be pharmaceutical, hormonal, genetic and neurological medical treatments to forestall raging anger and violence, addictions and the like, such as implants to increase empathy or mitigate anger in violent criminals, or to mitigate sexual drives in sexual offenders, including child abusers, as an alternative to imprisonment?
My book opens such questions for consideration:
~~~
Would Buddhist ethical systems tolerate, or even support, these kinds of changes to our criminal justice system? I believe so. Buddhism has always called for the humane treatment of prisoners and the avoidance of violence, anger and killing. One can argue that Buddhism has always advocated for people’s reform, for their atoning for the past, being forgiven when they do, and their then being offered a chance for a new life and a clean slate, rather than advocating punishment as primarily retribution. Even Buddhist hells are not permanent, and eventually come to an end. A Bodhisattva will do anything to release those trapped by the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance so as to return them to a decent life. When we chant Metta (loving kindness, e.g., “May they be free of anger … ”) for someone destructive or threatening in this world, or offer ceremonies, or pray to a Bodhisattva to bring change in someone’s thinking, hoping to appease the troubled heart of someone violent and angry we know, are we not also asking for a kind of inner intervention?
One objection might be raised by those traditional Buddhists who believe in a system of karma and rebirth based on volitional actions: If an implant or other medical treatment prevents a person from forming such volition, is that not interfering somehow with the person’s karmic stream? However, would not the changes and treatments also be part of their karmic stream? In other words, if someone chooses to do good, does it really matter the inner motivations which led them to do so, whether ancient karmic seeds, the way their parents raised them, or a device which adjusts their emotional reactions to events? Is not their receiving the device itself perhaps a karmic effect of their past actions? By preventing further bad behavior, are we not acting as Bodhisattvas saving these suffering sentient beings from future punishments and further bad karma? In fact, some of us believe that the system of karma and rebirth may have been, throughout its history, primarily a metaphor and method to drive people into good behavior by reward or fear (e.g., “Don’t commit violence or risk the fires of Buddhist hell!”) If such is the case, then the point was always to stop people from violence, a goal in which technology may succeed where post-mortem threats and morality sermons have regularly failed. ** However, the bottom line is the prevention of violence and the saving of lives. It is a fundamental Buddhist tenet that there are no “bad people,” only sentient beings who do bad acts because of the excess desires, anger and divided thinking within them, the three poisons. This new course honors that fact. In traditional Buddhist view, the real victims of violence are both the harmed and the harm-doer, each being a victim of the true culprit that is the greed and anger within.
And once we have eliminated most violent crime and emptied our prisons, we can then decide as a society if there is more we wish to do in order to make people nicer and this planet more peaceful and pleasant for all.
As well, we must ask how we can successfully go about it.
That is the topic of our next chapter.
** FOOTNOTE: Perhaps a similar argument could be made if various methods are used to wipe memories of trauma from victims of child abuse and other violence, or to “expunge” the memories of the wrongdoer himself once he is made “a new man” by an implanted devise or the like. I do agree that wrongdoers may work an injustice if they are able to erase easily their own memories of having done terrible acts, especially if the only purpose in doing so is for former child rapists or war criminals to sleep better at night. I think that such people should always carry some memory, repulsion and regret at what happened at their hands in the past even if they are prevented from repeating the behavior in the future.
Gassho, J
stlah
What would be the impact on (and of) certain Buddhist teachings and ethical views should their be pharmaceutical, hormonal, genetic and neurological medical treatments to forestall raging anger and violence, addictions and the like, such as implants to increase empathy or mitigate anger in violent criminals, or to mitigate sexual drives in sexual offenders, including child abusers, as an alternative to imprisonment?
My book opens such questions for consideration:
~~~
Would Buddhist ethical systems tolerate, or even support, these kinds of changes to our criminal justice system? I believe so. Buddhism has always called for the humane treatment of prisoners and the avoidance of violence, anger and killing. One can argue that Buddhism has always advocated for people’s reform, for their atoning for the past, being forgiven when they do, and their then being offered a chance for a new life and a clean slate, rather than advocating punishment as primarily retribution. Even Buddhist hells are not permanent, and eventually come to an end. A Bodhisattva will do anything to release those trapped by the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance so as to return them to a decent life. When we chant Metta (loving kindness, e.g., “May they be free of anger … ”) for someone destructive or threatening in this world, or offer ceremonies, or pray to a Bodhisattva to bring change in someone’s thinking, hoping to appease the troubled heart of someone violent and angry we know, are we not also asking for a kind of inner intervention?
One objection might be raised by those traditional Buddhists who believe in a system of karma and rebirth based on volitional actions: If an implant or other medical treatment prevents a person from forming such volition, is that not interfering somehow with the person’s karmic stream? However, would not the changes and treatments also be part of their karmic stream? In other words, if someone chooses to do good, does it really matter the inner motivations which led them to do so, whether ancient karmic seeds, the way their parents raised them, or a device which adjusts their emotional reactions to events? Is not their receiving the device itself perhaps a karmic effect of their past actions? By preventing further bad behavior, are we not acting as Bodhisattvas saving these suffering sentient beings from future punishments and further bad karma? In fact, some of us believe that the system of karma and rebirth may have been, throughout its history, primarily a metaphor and method to drive people into good behavior by reward or fear (e.g., “Don’t commit violence or risk the fires of Buddhist hell!”) If such is the case, then the point was always to stop people from violence, a goal in which technology may succeed where post-mortem threats and morality sermons have regularly failed. ** However, the bottom line is the prevention of violence and the saving of lives. It is a fundamental Buddhist tenet that there are no “bad people,” only sentient beings who do bad acts because of the excess desires, anger and divided thinking within them, the three poisons. This new course honors that fact. In traditional Buddhist view, the real victims of violence are both the harmed and the harm-doer, each being a victim of the true culprit that is the greed and anger within.
And once we have eliminated most violent crime and emptied our prisons, we can then decide as a society if there is more we wish to do in order to make people nicer and this planet more peaceful and pleasant for all.
As well, we must ask how we can successfully go about it.
That is the topic of our next chapter.
** FOOTNOTE: Perhaps a similar argument could be made if various methods are used to wipe memories of trauma from victims of child abuse and other violence, or to “expunge” the memories of the wrongdoer himself once he is made “a new man” by an implanted devise or the like. I do agree that wrongdoers may work an injustice if they are able to erase easily their own memories of having done terrible acts, especially if the only purpose in doing so is for former child rapists or war criminals to sleep better at night. I think that such people should always carry some memory, repulsion and regret at what happened at their hands in the past even if they are prevented from repeating the behavior in the future.
Gassho, J
stlah